DoD News Briefing
Mr. Kenneth H. Bacon, ASD PA
Tuesday, September 12, 2000 - 2:41 p.m.EDT
Q: There's a congressional staff report out that says that China's modernizing its military and developing joint war-fighting faster than the Pentagon estimates. Would you agree with that assessment, or do you have a different view?
Bacon: Well, I haven't -- I can't comment on that, because I haven't read the report. And I guess I can -- I've read your account of the report, but I haven't read the report itself.
We've said many times that China is on a steady and sustained military upgrade program. It doesn't appear to be a particularly rapid program. When Deng Xiaoping set the four modernizations, military was one of the four modernizations. It happens to be the last modernization that China got to.
Their officially reported defense budget is $12 billion. We think that significantly understates what they're spending. But by even the most generous accounts, they're spending only a fraction of what we're spending on an annual basis on defense, to support a military that is much larger and a military that is much more primitively equipped than our military. So they have a very significant way to go by Western standards. But beyond that, I think it's hard to -- I can't comment on a report that I haven't read.
Q: I guess the reason I would ask is because with the QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review] coming up, I think this is going to be one of the topics that will have to be addressed, the pace of how fast China will be developing systems and how much of a threat that would pose for the U.S., and how the U.S. forces would be structured. Do you have any view on how the growth of China's military should be factored into the QDR, the upcoming QDR?
Bacon: Well, I will not be here for the next QDR, no matter who is elected president, and the QDR will largely take place after the next secretary of Defense arrives here. Secretary Cohen has arranged it so that it will be a document that will not be handed over to the next secretary of Defense but created by the next secretary of Defense so he can use it as an opportunity to set his or her own priorities.
All I can tell you is that China has a modernization program under way. Probably the most -- one of the most obvious and dramatic parts is their efforts to build up their short-range ballistic missile force across the Taiwan Strait, and they're adding missiles now at about 50 or so a year. Admiral Blair has commented on that, and that's been widely reported.
They are far away from having air superiority over the Taiwan Straits, which they would need if they were to contemplate military action. We believe that they should, and we hope they will, settle any disputes with Taiwan peacefully under the one-China policy. But they have a relatively slow modernization program for their tactical air force, and they have what appears to be a plan to modernize their fleet air defenses, but there again, it's not a dramatic program.
In terms of strategic buildup, they don't seem to have aspirations for a large strategic force. Their strategic force is really quite small. They do have plans to enlarge it, but they don't seem to be break-neck plans at this stage. So we continue to -- we obviously watch China very carefully, and obviously, we are trying to deal with China militarily and diplomatically to keep good, predictable and steady relations with them.
Q: And one last question on the exchange program. A couple of weeks ago, a group of Chinese military officers visited the Joint Forces Command and were briefed on, I think, joint warfighting training. Some members of Congress have questioned whether that briefing crossed the legal guidelines restricting exchanges with the People's Liberation Army. Do you have a view on whether those briefings were legal under the so-called Smith-DeLay Guidelines?
Bacon: Well, I haven't read the Smith-DeLay Guidelines, but I have read the briefing, and I'd have to say, by my lights, it's pretty dull stuff. Here's a copy of it right here. I believe you've seen it, but if anybody else wants to see it, they can, and it's sort of a typical PowerPoint briefing that has charts like this in it. It has an organization chart in it for the Joint Forces Command, which doesn't strike me as particularly revealing -- this type of chart that says it's run by a four-star officer.
And it is, I think, a pretty plain vanilla-type briefing; the type of briefing that any of us might receive if we went down to the Joint Forces Command and they were explaining to us what their organizational principles were and their training goals. So I do not believe that this was an inappropriate briefing.
Q: Well, the law does state specifically that joint warfighting is limited from discussions with the PLA, so that's really the issue that these members are raising.
Bacon: I think that it would be difficult to say that a chart like this is revealing sensitive information. I do not believe that this was an improper briefing in any way and, obviously, the Defense Department doesn't either.
...
Q: The Senate is debating an amendment to the China trade bill which would punish China for its weapons proliferation activities. And a number of speakers, both Democrats and Republicans, have said that China has not fulfilled its promises to curb its nuclear missile exports. Does the Pentagon have a view on whether China has fulfilled its promises? I know that the secretary made an issue of the cruise missiles with China in '98, I believe.
Bacon: We are concerned about China's technical and other support to other countries. China, however, has made significant progress in controlling proliferant activities, particularly over the last 20 or 30 years. It used to not subscribe to any anti-proliferation agreements; now it has made some anti-proliferation promises and we believe that it is keeping those promises within the letter of the law.
It's an issue that we discuss with China on a regular basis. And I think the issue that has to be addressed here is whether we have more leverage over China in drawing it into the community of nations interested in controlling proliferation, by working with China, or we gain more influence by not working with China. The view of Secretary Cohen, and of this administration, is that to the extent that we can build stronger relations with China, based on a clear understanding of what's in our national interests, that we will be better able to work with or influence China on topics such as proliferation. We have made some progress; we would like to make more progress, and we discuss this issue with China almost every time -- I would say virtually every time a high-level official meets with a Chinese counterpart, and that includes the president.
Q: But what kind of progress? What would be considered progress?
Bacon: Well, I would consider, one, China's promise not to export certain anti-ship cruise missiles to Iran; that's an example. I would consider China's promise not to sell MTCR- -- missile technology control regime -- class ground-to-ground missiles, whole missiles, to other countries as a sign of progress. These are limited. They don't go as far as we'd like. But they are improvements over China's past behavior. So I think we've made a start. We'd like to go further, and I think we've been very clear about that.
Q: So to follow up on that, Iran anti-ship cruise missiles -- they had sold them a previous generation of them, correct?
Bacon: We're talking about the C-801/C-802 anti-ship cruise missiles.
Q: So they do have Chinese -- but they're old ones, right?
Bacon: Yes. I can't remember when this agreement was made. It was sometime in the last four years.
Q: And they've held to that most recent --
Bacon: We believe so, yes.
-END-
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
